So called "art" | My Trip to Tate Modern and Contemporary Art

Today I delve into the depths of contemporary art and it's so called "place" in the art world. After visiting London's Tate Modern gallery the other day, I realised that many of the pieces available for the public to view are boring and uninteresting which is especially disappointing considering how difficult it is for artists to break into the industry today.
Instagram artists you should follow:
/ madisunart
/ bradleycopelandstudio
/ mkfluo
/ iamwillblood
Cartoonists:
/ rossekku
/ chef.gatsby
/ devonscribbles
/ solar_wola
/ tizzflo
/ wolfythecollie
/ pokav79
Tattooists:
/ sharkeeea_tt
/ icanpokeyou
/ morganeskyetattoo
/ myuanl.tattoo
/ ghost.ink.333
/ lidybbytattoo
/ bunnie.tatz
/ qiqi_tattoo
/ violentviolet.tattoo
/ tattoosbybethwilde
/ kettle_tats
/ isabelly
/ ell_tattoo
Tate Modern: www.tate.org.uk/visit/tate-mo...
Dane Fine Art: www.danefineart.com/modern-ar...
For video editing, art or animation commissions, fill out the form on my website: hannahblackwell.cargo.site/Co...
Website: hannahblackwell.cargo.site/
Instagram: / _.aiche._
TikTok: www.tiktok.com/@_aiche_?_t=8g...
Threads: www.threads.net/@_.aiche._
Thank you for your support!

[@rhea6128]

nice video but is it that you feel good art requires labor ..? how do you feel about typography or graphic design ?

[@A1che]

I think it’s less about labour and more about skill and the amount of thought that has been put into a piece. I find that many of these pieces don’t feel like they’ve had much thought put into the work and the artist isn’t showing off their skill set that has supposedly improved over the years as an artist. I think typography and graphic design requires a fair bit of skill and effort: a lot of graphic design for example goes through many stages and edits. But, at the end of the day, graphic design and typography don’t bring in as much money as some of this “art” does where it can be argued that a lot more skill, effort and thought has been put into it

[@rhea6128]

@@A1che see I think I just disagree, the art market is unregulated and works like the stock market - which sucks in many many ways. I often feels like a bad person because I tend not to like “outsider art.”
sometimes something just has an interesting story behind it, or just looks cool
would I be wrong to assume your complaint is that: these artists, who are not a good representation of skill or culture, are holding valuable public space?
art hurts my head it’s hard to get my thoughts on it straight, but should art have to be skilled? or thoughtful? can’t it just be decor? an interesting collection?

[@jesussuarez8149]

We can like or not an artwork but that is not enough criteria to value art. Laughing on someone else artwork or using arguments like “I could do it myself“ is disrespectful and not a valid argument to criticize an artwork. The artworks are not only the media, materials or process. The aesthetics can be important for some artist but some have a message and a context to express themselves. Sometimes the artwork we do not understand is actually the one to study in order to open our minds to enjoy and learn about art and life. We have to be humble criticising other artists works, some of the artists you mentioned in the video, like Bram Bogart or Piero Manzoni were people pioneering art movements in their life time and exhibiting all around the world. Do you think all these museums and art galleries do not curate their art? Artist, curators and art organisations with decades of reputation and experience…. I understand you are studying art and want to make your point on internet about how much you know about it, please ask your art teachers to watch your video to provide you their insights. It will be surely a very valuable help in your future art career.

[@alternativevoice2541]

Gerhard Richter has, in his career asa painter made very realistic/illusionistic pictures. The point is, it's not so much about skill but whether an idea can reveal truth. His 'Cage' paintings use limited means in their construction andthey are about the materiality of paint and its qualities, for example. You need to approach them taking such things into consideration. Comparing an abstract painting with a Renaissance painting for example solely on the basis of whether the artist can render a realistic image is a pointless exercise. It's also simplistic to say Richter has just 'squished some paint around on a canvas'. He would, in making the paintings be concerned with formal qualities such as relationships between colours and types of marks made. Saying anyone could do that is meaningless and not an accurate way of evaluating the paintings.
Your comments on Agnes Martin's work again showa lack of understanding of the artist's intentions and reasons for her methodology. You trivialise it by describing it as something anyone could do or achieve with little thought or skill. This is missing the point totally. Martin chose to use limited means to make paintings precisely; you might say in a kind of Zen, reductive manner again, like Richter to reveal truth. They are contemplative images demanding time in the act of looking. Paintings like these will respond if the person who looksat them brings something to the act of looking. They are about intensity whilst also being about simplicity. They also have provenance and context in relation to their place in art history so understanding what went before and what came after can be very helpful. Having said that, they should stand alone as any serious art work should and I thik they do if the viewer approaches them without expectation or pre conceived ideas.
The money aspect is irrelevant.